User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: zero-power toggle circuit; was, how to master electronics
References: <3DC282F0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DC2E327.email@example.com> <3DC3B8B8.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DC3EFA5.email@example.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 12:34:53 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 07:34:53 EST
Organization: Road Runner
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Winfield Hill" wrote in message
>>Kevin Aylward wrote...
>>>Wafer wrote ...
>>>>For instance, if I ask you to come up with a simple circuit that
>>>>would toggle power to a load on and off with each press of a
>>>>momentary switch, but draw no current in the off state, what
>>>>would you do? I would bet that your circuit would be nothing
>>>It would be simple, using standard techniques that are known to
>>>work. There is no point reinventing the wheel. In this case a
>>>cmos JK or T flipflop driving a mos comes to mind.
>> I think Wafer has in mind a discrete transistor solution.
> Well, maybe he did, but again, in my view a good circuit is not one that
> has some unusual feature or some sort of "clever" approach. The *best*
> approach are circuits that are bog standard, easily understood by simple
> inspection and meet spec. "Best" being defined as the ability to ship
> reliable product with few returns, in a timely time to market manner.
> This is what we get paid to do, not to produce aesthetically pleasing
> circuits that we like to impress people with.
> I am a bit hard on this issue as I feel that so many have simply the
> wrong view on what being an EE is all about. We get paid to make
> *profit* for the companies that employ us, not to produce elegant
> circuits. The contractual duty therefore is to maximise profit.
> Kevin Aylward
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
I am so very glad the whole world does not take that approach to things.
Using that methodology, you can only produce something that everyone
else already knows how to produce. Innovation would be stifled, and we
would never get past the invention of the wheel. You may like to stay
bogged down in standards, but some of us rather enjoy the art of
creation. New technology is what drives us forward into the future.
Don't you want hydrogen fuel cells (or something even better) to replace
batteries? Don't you want electric cars? Solar powered houses?
Anti-gravity? Transporter technology? Superconductors at room
temperature? Drip-proof bottles? Drool-proof babies? Dolly the cloned sheep?
These things take lots of experimentation and tons of money. The profit
is but a dream until much much later, but we have to try, for our only
limits are the ones we put on ourselves.